Two German physicists have written a paper debunking the "theory" of the greenhouse gas effect by demonstrating how it violates basic laws of physics. Their paper, Falsification of the Atmospheric CO₂ Greenhouse Effects Within the Frame of Physics, was published last year in the peer-reviewed International Journal of Modern Physics.

The authors are Gerhard Gerlich, a professor of mathematical physics at the Technical University Carolo-Wilhelmina in Braunschweig, and Ralf Tscheuchner, a retired professor of theoretical physics and freelance lecturer and researcher in physics and applied informatics.

Gerlich and Tscheuschner first define carbon dioxide as a trace gas accounting for less than one percent of air's volume and mass. They say even a doubling of the concentration of atmospheric CO₂ would hardly change the thermal conductivity of air. If it did, the change would be well within margins of error currently in place.

From this short tutorial, the scientists go on to show the vast difference in physical laws between real greenhouses and Earth's atmosphere. They expose the fallacies in accepted definitions of greenhouse effect from several popular sources. "It is not 'trapped' infrared radiation which explains the warming phenomenon in a real greenhouse but the suppression of air cooling." Gerlich and Tscheuschner explain Earth's atmosphere does not function in the same way, nor does it function in the way global-warming alarmists describe as "transparent for visible light but opaque for infrared radiation."

Then they make the point that climate models used to predict catastrophic global warming violate the second law of thermodynamics. The law states any closed system left to itself will continually deteriorate toward a more chaotic state. The German scientists illustrate how the idea of heat flow from atmospheric greenhouse gases to the warmer ground violates this principle. There would have to be a heat pump mechanism in perpetual motion in the atmosphere to transfer heat from a low to a high temperature reservoir, and such a machine cannot exist. They call the greenhouse effect a fictitious mechanism. "The claim that CO₂ emissions give rise to anthropogenic [man-made] climate changes has no physical basis."

Throughout the paper the authors show that those who advocate the greenhouse gas theory use faulty calculations and guesstimates to arrive at their catastrophic conjectures, and though Gerlich and Tscheuschner make no specific accusation, they point out how many respected scientists have blamed alarmists for intentional fraud rather than mere scientific error. They also reveal that the idea of a greenhouse effect is modern and never mentioned in any fundamental work of thermodynamics, physical kinetics, or radiation theory. According to them, it is impossible to replicate forecasts made by climate modelers' computer simulations with any known scientific formulae.

Though their 115-page paper includes clear explanations, nearly 200 equations, tables and graphs, and 205 references, it should come as no surprise that Gerlich and Tscheuschner have been blacklisted by the climate-change community. "Stupidity," "crackpot," "dross," and "bunkum" are several of the descriptives used in online blogs blasting the paper. The first edition of the Gerlich/Tscheuschner paper released in 2007 caused enough of a stir to prompt Arthur P. Smith with the American Physical Society to issue a 2008 rebuttal, "Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect." Yet in his nine-page article, Smith cited only five sources, one of which was the Gerlich/Tscheuschner work, and failed to address most of the points raised in it. The 2009 update of the original Gerlich/Tscheuschner piece has yet to be disproved, though for the most part alarmists continue to ignore it in their mad rush toward global eco-government and a world-wide carbon trading market worth billions.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (16)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Flu-Bird said:

	Global warming junk science This whole GLOBAL WARMING/CLIAMTE CHANGE is a big time lie being used by the one worlders and new ag pagans to force us into ruin and a pagan earth worshipping savages
	report abuse vote down vote up

January 27, 2010
Votes: +4

They miss the point, Lowly rated comment [Show]

Zdzislaw Meglicki said:

No, they don't miss the point No, they don't miss the point. The point is that atmospheric CO2, having absorbed infrared radiation, has to re-radiate it. In the balance it all has to flow back into space. It cannot flow "up the hill" and keep accumulating at the earth's surface, because this would violate the second law of thermodynamics. They had the paper published in the International Journal of Modern Physics, which is a pretty demanding journal, and the paper was thoroughly reviewed and revised. It took some two years for it to be published in the end. There is a good review of various takes on the "atmospheric greenhouse effect" in pages 35-44, followed by a more detailed discussion of radiative balance, radiative transfer and related phenomena. The authors' comments on numerical climate modelling are right on.

report abuse vote down vote up

January 27, 2010 | url
Votes: +18

OzDoc said:

	Their point - My point Their point - "climate models used to predict catastrophic global warming violate the second law of thermodynamics. The law states any closed system left to itself will continually deteriorate toward a more chaotic state." My point - the globe (and its tropospheric envelope) is not a closed system. So no, the second law is not violated.
	report abuse vote down vote up

January 27, 2010
Votes: -3

Tracy Poole said:

Logic By your logic Mr. Burnside, Then my durty windows should keep my house warmer. Yes? Shouldn't the same greenhouse gasses filter the same incoming and outgoing frequencies of which you speak? Forgive me but I am a skeptic to the N'th degree where science and politics meet. I agree we should take care of our planet, but good stewardship means well thought out planning and solutions not knee jerk reactions.

report abuse vote down vote up

January 27, 2010
Votes: +3

Thomas Paine said:

	Flu Bird, I'm with you. Looks like New American is being infiltrated by the New Age NWO United Nation's followers. Flu Bird is right on. Why does he show -3 votes. Who are these traitors.
	report abuse vote down vote up

January 27, 2010
Votes: +1

OzDoc said:

Thomas New Age NWO United Nations followers? Stop smokin' the stuff mate. The article is about a science paper by Gerlich & Tscheuchner, NOT a new world order. In the article it is claimed the planet is a closed system, it is NOT. The author clearly does not know what she is talking about ... either about the subject paper, or the physics. You on the other hand seem to have a blinkered eye focussed on political ideology. Unfortunately, the "debate" is not about science anymore, it's about what politics, economics or socio-cultural upbringing you have - science has got nothing to do with it - as you so poignantly demonstrate.

report abuse vote down vote up

January 28, 2010
Votes: -3

Bryan said:

The paper written by the two German Physicists is well argued. Both Physicists are of highest standard and their paper has been peer reviewed. Both have had several papers published after peer reviews. On other blogs it has attracted a lot of mud slinging but not from physicists working in the feild of heat transfer or advanced thermodynamics. Until their paper is rebutted by some expert in peer reviewed journal I would ignore the general comment one finds in blogs

report abuse vote down vote up

January 28, 2010
Votes: +14

Stephen Wilde said:

	... I think this is a better explanation: http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=1562&linkbox=true&position=4
	report abuse vote down vote up

January 28, 2010
Votes: +1

Stephen Wilde said:

	... Whoops, I hope this now works: http://climaterealists.com/ind...position=4
	report abuse vote down vote up

January 28, 2010
Votes: +2

yonason said:

	I trust Gerlich & Tscheuchner much more than Hansen & Gore For those criticizing the paper, I recommend you read (and understand) it first. Robert W. Wood, physicist at Johns Hopkins, falsified the greenhouse theory back in 1909 with a simple experiment. For a description of what he did, see pages 6 and 7 here... http://eppinger.files.wordpres...er-1-2.pdf
	report abuse vote down vote up

January 29, 2010
Votes: +1

Bryan said:

	... Good post stephen wilde a very readable article. Its important to know that the G&T article is mainly concerned with showing that the particular co2 global warming mechanism has no basis in Physics.
	report abuse vote down vote up

January 30, 2010
Votes: +2

Mark Sawusch said:

	To Yonason To Yonason: is there an English translation of this available?
	report abuse vote down vote up

January 30, 2010 | url
Votes: +0

Mark Sawusch said:

	Rebuttals to Rebutttal and further evidence There was a rebuttal published refuting the Smith rebuttal you mentioned above: http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2009/11/greenhouse-gas-theory-violates-2nd-law.html
	report abuse vote down vote up

January 30, 2010 | url
Votes: +0

Flu-Bird said:

	Beware the eco-nazis and green shirts The eoc-nazis and the green shirts will want to tell you what days you can heat your home or use the air conditoner or confiscate your SUV or force you into mass transit or bicycles we dont need them and we dont need the EPA anymore
	report abuse vote down vote up

February 02, 2010
Votes: +0

Fudge said:

	... A tiny bit off topic from this specific report, but is it my imagination or are there suddenly a flood of peer reviewed reports coming out that seem to really undermine really fundemental aspects of co2 and it's importance in global warming.
	report abuse vote down vote up

February 06, 2010
Votes: +2